We could switch to arguing over what we should do about it.
From one of L.Ron’s better works, “Typewriter in the Sky”
The existence of aliens wouldn’t make a difference. If they treated all our religions like amusing cargo cults, that maybe would. Or maybe they know God exists, and it is the same God, and they come to tell us that God has abandoned us because we suck (like in del Rey’s “For I’m a Jealous People.” )
Another thought; not only can the aliens talk to the creator, but the Creator is specifically female; not neuter, not something incomprehensible, and especially not male. And she’s irritated at the common Earthly portrayal of the creator of the universe as male.
How about aliens show up and follow a religion that is clearly a near copy of an Earthly one, but not some variation on Christianity as these debates usually assume. What’s the reaction of the major religions when it turns out that the One True Religion is some polytheistic faith only practiced on Earth by a small tribe in South America? Or Wicca? Or (heh) Scientology?
How about they follow some sort of “God”, but one that has clearly alien and mostly incomprehensible desires and commandments - and demonstrates his reality by performing miracles for the faithful. “What, do you mean that your God doesn’t perform miracles? How do you know he’s real then?”
I’m glad the conversation wasn’t derailed by this, but in the future, don’t accuse other posters of trolling in Great Debates.
Der Trihs, these are interesting hypotheticals.
Well, that would be difficult to reconcile with any major Earth religion; not because God is assumed to be male but because God is normally thought of as non-corporeal. I’m not sure how a being who is pure spirit can be said to be male or female specifically. Although male pronouns are commonly used to describe God, you won’t find many theists who actually believe God is male or female. We see attributes commonly associated with both sexes in God. And although it’s difficult to buck tradition, the current trend is toward using more gender-inclusive language in theology, liturgy, hymnody, and scripture translation. If these aliens worship a creator who is physically located in space and time, it’s hard to understand how she could be credited with creating the universe from within it.
She’s not the only one, some advocates of gender-inclusive language in the church can be very passionate.
That’s an excellent question. My response is that most religions contain some truth in them, and this alien religion is probably no exception, but I don’t see how they are determined to be the “one true religion” over any of the earthly ones just by virtue of having better techonology.
You mean ‘her’ reality? 
I don’t know, you’ll find plenty of people even today who believe that God performs miracles. As far as “incomprehensible desires and commandments” – heck, the Judeo-Christian God is accused of that all the time!
I apologize to you and DT, I had forgotten that was the rule.
I think this man would disagree. :rolleyes:
Ecklund should include leading scientists and the NAS surveys.
This is of no consequence. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. It can, and often does, refute certain beliefs that human beings have adopted with regard to God.
But what if the aliens had solid primary evidence of the interaction of their god(s) with their society? On Earth we have hundreds of incompatible and evolving religions each with little or no evidence of their validity. What if the Spanish had discovered that the Aztecs had holy men who had memorized the New Testament exactly, and were waiting for the priests to come. Or gasp the Koran? What if we had multiple manuscripts, all traceable to participants, of various Bible stories, including some by non-believers? if the aliens had this kind of evidence, I think their claim to know the truth would be a lot better than ours.
I think we sometimes tend to forget that holy books to not inherently have to be scientifically inaccurate, contradictory, and historically suspect. Only ours are.
You die, there is an afterlife…but God isn’t there. Now the really faithful could chalk this up to just being a test, but you’d think after a couple thousand years they’d start to wonder.
Nonsense. It’s already disproved God as typically described just as much as it can disprove anything; the only reason people don’t admit it is because religion is granted a special privileged standard for “disproof”. And it can’t prove there’s a God not because there’s anything unscientific about the idea, but because science can’t provide proof of something that doesn’t exist. It can’t prove God exists for the same reason it can’t prove Sauron exists.
Here’s one; we find God, but he’s dead.
But again, that doesn’t disprove God himself. It only - to whatever extent it does - disproves human notions about him.
Or roll it back further, they’ve been watching us since pre-Cro Magnon times – and are happy to show us their masses of archival footage – but hadn’t made contact until now because of some Prime Directive-like agreement.
Go further; they took over watching this area of the spiral arm from an earlier race (now gone post-physical) and have their archival footage which dates back to the very interesting Cambrian explosion.
None of this would invalidate the concept of a personal god, but it would pretty much trash any biblical literalism claims.
“Anthropological” information about other aliens could add further weight. From memory in Clarke’s Fountains of Paradise the aliens tell us that they’ve encountered quite a few other species and the concept of a personal deity seems to consistently show up in races that nurture their young in a family unit (or something like that) and that it’s part of their evolutionary psychology.
Again it wouldn’t invalidate the concept of god, but it would put another nail in the coffin of organized religion, to use the vernacular. 
That argument falls flat because those “human notions” are all there is to “God”. God is a human defined word and concept. If there’s something “out there” that doesn’t fit those human notions, then whatever it is, it isn’t God.
Okay, then, look at it this way. Science cannot prove that God didn’t create the universe; that God didn’t create life; and that life as we know now it not is not due to intelligent design by God. At it’s most basic level, that is what people are talking about when they talk about God.
And it’s why I say that science can never disprove the existence of God. Science can only disprove certain ideas people have about God, but only so far as they have tangible and have physical aspects - the belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old, or that it was created in six days, or that light was created after the creation of earth. But while science can disprove each of these things, it still cannot begin to prove that God did not create the universe, the earth, and all the life upon it in some way or the other.
Once upon a time, most people didn’t believe in or even have a concept of evolution. Now, adaptation (but not necessarily creation) through evolution is pretty much unquestioned by most reasonable and reasonably educated people, but that hasn’t come close to disproving the existence of God to those who believe in him. They’ve simply evolved (:D) the new belief that previous notions of existence are primative and unsophisticated and that was science has learned about evolution goes a long way toward explaining the reality of how God created life as we know it today.
As I implied further upthread, science is always going to find that it’s turtles all the way down in attempting to use tangible physical proofs to disprove the spiritual exisence of God. And it’s utter nonsense to think that it can.
Personally, I’d be very happy if people were satisfied to leave it at that, instead of multiplying the arbitrary beliefs in all directions and imposing them on others.
Man, that wasn’t a very intelligently designed sentence was it?
Editing is not always my friend.
But why would you expect this? When Judeo-Christian civilisations first made contact with other human civilisations - whether Aztec, Inca, Native American, Australian, Maori, Easter Islanders etc etc and so on ad infinitum - there was never something recognisable as Judeo-Christian religion in the contacted civ. Are you telling me one of these Native American gods is Yahweh in disguise? Or one of these Aztec gods? There has never been a case of “hey, your religion is just like ours! the details are different but the big guy we both worship is clearly the same!”
So why on earth would you expect this to happen with the alien civilisations?
Yeah, it’s a weak argument that JudeoChristianity is the “right” religion, isn’t it? The main reason it displaced these native religions is because of guns, germs and steel, not that some common ground was found between the two faiths (or, as I think is being implied, that the natives were really JudeoChristians, but just had some of the details wrong), and I think it’s safe to assume that the guns and steel brought by interstellar aliens is going to be as superior to ours as Cortes’s were to the Aztecs. We might have to hope that our germs beat theirs, if their intent is hostile.
I doubt that the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire had anything to do with guns or germs, and the rest of the spread seems to be largely predicated on that.
Still not clear how the existence of aliens doesn’t fit with the current understanding of Abrahamic religion.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all embrace this, although it is certainly not the summation of everything they teach. The teaching that “God created everything” covers aliens too.
Regards,
Shodan